California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 2015 No. E063029Unpublished
Filed 11/17/15 P. v. Salas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063029
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1304971)
JIMMY RAY SALAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jimmy Ray Salas, in pro. per.; and Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On October 9, 2014, a jury found defendant and appellant Jimmy Ray Salas guilty
of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition
1
(Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a));1 assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, to
wit, bolt cutters (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); and assault by means of force likely to produce
great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant subsequently admitted that he had
suffered one prior prison term (§ 667.5), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd.
whether a specific item in a given case is a “deadly weapon or instrument” is ultimately a
question of fact for the jury.
Examples of such objects which are not deadly per se, but found to be deadly
weapons under the particular circumstances have included a screwdriver (People v.
Simons (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1107), a straight pin embedded in an apple (In re
Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 276), a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242
Cal.App.2d 476, 486-487), a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464,
465), a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 238, 239), and a
fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660, 665). These objects have in
common the fact that, when used in a physical attack on a person, they are capable of and
are likely to produce death or great bodily injury. In the present matter, the jury could
reasonably infer from the evidence, as described above, that the bolt cutters used to
repeatedly strike the victim was a deadly weapon. If an object such as a pillow, a straight
pin imbedded in an apple, and a razor blade may be found by the trier of fact to be a
“deadly weapon or instrument” within the meaning of section 245, certainly a bolt cutter
which is capable of and likely to produce great bodily injury should also be considered a
deadly weapon.
Defendant also argues that the evidence shows he acted in self-defense in using
the bolt cutters to strike the victim and therefore he was wrongfully convicted of assault
with a deadly weapon. We disagree.
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we
review “ ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine
7
whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible,
and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500,
507.) “The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on
circumstantial evidence.” (Ibid.) That the evidence may support a finding that defendant
acted in self-defense does not mean the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that
defendant did not act in self-defense. The jury, not the appellate court, must be
convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cravens, supra, at pp.
507-508.) If the circumstances reasonably support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, we will not reverse even if we believe that we might reasonably
reconcile the circumstances with a contrary finding. (Id. at p. 508.) We will affirm the
conviction “ ‘unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient
substantial evidence to support [the conviction].” ’ ” (Ibid.)
“ ‘To justify an act of self-defense for [an assault charge . . .], the defendant must
have an honest and reasonable belief that bodily injury is about to be inflicted on
him. . . .’ The threat . . . must be imminent . . . and ‘. . . any right of self-defense is
limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.’ [Citation.]”
(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064-1065.) Here, there was sufficient
evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was not acting in
self-defense when he struck the victim with the bolt cutters. Defendant had been treating
the victim with hostility after she confronted him about his alleged drug use. He became
angry, yelled and cursed at the victim, and pushed her to the ground twice. The victim,
8
who was crying and scared during the entire incident, grabbed some nearby scissors to
protect herself from defendant and told him not to touch her again. There was no
evidence the victim attempted to attack defendant with the scissors or lunged at defendant
with the scissors; rather, immediately after the victim grabbed the scissors, defendant, in
response, grabbed the bolt cutters and began hitting the victim’s arm several times with
the bolt cutters. On the evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the
People, the jury could have reasonably found that defendant was not acting in self-
defense when he assaulted the victim with the bolt cutters.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for corporal injury on a spouse, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's rejection of his self-defense claim and its determination that bolt cutters constituted a deadly weapon.
Issues
Whether bolt cutters constitute a 'deadly weapon' under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of the defendant's claim of self-defense.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“whether a specific item in a given case is a “deadly weapon or instrument” is ultimately a question of fact for the jury.”
“the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence, as described above, that the bolt cutters used to repeatedly strike the victim was a deadly weapon.”
“there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was not acting in self-defense when he struck the victim with the bolt cutters.”